Two points, PROOF has a very different meaning depending upon the discipline. You don't scientifically prove someone is guilty of a crime. If ten people testified that a man committed a crime, you'd vote guilty. If ten people testify to the existence of God, you'd call them ten nutcases.

That may be how a jury would vote... but it's not how they are SUPPOSED to vote... they are supposed to be presented with EVIDENCE, and base their "vote" on said evidence. If the evidence doesn't show guilt, then they are SUPPOSED to vote innocent even if their "gut" tells them otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

...Take for example gravity which can be measured and experienced, but isn't understood completely as a force. If someone comes to you and say many people experience God. They see proof of God measured by the number of people that claim this experience. They say a preponderance of the evidence both in polls, historical, etc point to existence of God. They don't accept it. Take the same standard though and apply it to gravity and they will. Then ask them where gravity comes from and well.... it gets messy.

Holy crap !!! (but that's redundant ) ...are you really that ignorant???
Gravity IS understood... we DO understand how it works and what causes it. That understanding is NOT based on a preponderance of evidence, "well, lots of people experience it so it must be true." While said "evidence" is what led people to start thinking about it and exploring its causes, the scientific theory is based on demonstrable, measurable processes... well understood and explainable.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

Show me where I said it was "imminent" that we would be wiped out by an asteroid. I said it was possible, because it is, and history shows that is almost certainly will happen at some point in the next few million years. So show me where I said was "imminent." Or you could apologise now.

The Rapture is Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine alone, so it isn't a problem for Hindus, Muslims, animists or atheists. For the rest of us, it's really not possible, imminent or probable. It is religious doctrine. It isn't going to happen, basically, so, unlike mass extinction events, it's only a problem for a few Christians who believe it.

Like you. That's cool. I don't "hate you" for thinking that, and I haven't made a single judgemental comment on your beliefs on that subject, ever, so I guess that, again, you are talking out of your arse and you might like to apologise now. I'm holding my breath..........

I stopped.

On the subject of your two accounts, well. Just asking. Something someone said. I sort of remember NoahJ works in IT or something, now I think about it, so apologies for the bald question. I don't think even you are batshit enough to have two accounts for that long.

Holy crap !!! (but that's redundant ) ...are you really that ignorant???
Gravity IS understood... we DO understand how it works and what causes it. That understanding is NOT based on a preponderance of evidence, "well, lots of people experience it so it must be true." While said "evidence" is what led people to start thinking about it and exploring its causes, the scientific theory is based on demonstrable, measurable processes... well understood and explainable.

Please tell me what causes gravity. I don't mean explain what we all observe. Explain the cause of the force of gravity.

Show me where I said it was "imminent" that we would be wiped out by an asteroid. I said it was possible, because it is, and history shows that is almost certainly will happen at some point in the next few million years. So show me where I said was "imminent." Or you could apologise now.

I'm showing you the logical leap you made. Apologize to yourself for making it. Your "proof" that it would happen was the fact that it had not happened for a very long period of time. Think about how ridiculous that reasoning is on it's face. Something become more likely to happen because it hasn't happened. I'm trying to show you the absurdity you apply to yourself and ridicule in others.

Quote:

The Rapture is Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine alone, so it isn't a problem for Hindus, Muslims, animists or atheists. For the rest of us, it's really not possible, imminent or probable. It is religious doctrine. It isn't going to happen, basically, so, unlike mass extinction events, it's only a problem for a few Christians who believe it.

So if it is a very small delusion, held by a few people, why concern yourself with it at all? You might like to be choked while getting your rocks off. That doesn't become my concern until you're asking me to tie the rope or demanding I use rope in my bedroom. Your private beliefs may inform your public votes, but we all have the same rights there. Your authoritarian bent means you want to disqualify or not allow someone their rights because you don't respect their private beliefs. You'd of course never tolerate the reverse.

Quote:

Like you. That's cool. I don't "hate you" for thinking that, and I haven't made a single judgemental comment on your beliefs on that subject, ever, so I guess that, again, you are talking out of your arse and you might like to apologise now. I'm holding my breath.........

.

You've done nothing but judge. You're an abusive person.

Quote:

I stopped.

Too bad.

Quote:

On the subject of your two accounts, well. Just asking. Something someone said. I sort of remember NoahJ works in IT or something, now I think about it, so apologies for the bald question. I don't think even you are batshit enough to have two accounts for that long.

So you get to accuse others based off hearsay and you claim to be a person who wants to ridicule others for acting on a lack of hard evidence.

I went out of my way, actually, to say I didn't judge you for believing in the Rapture, and any objective reader just can just frigging scroll up and decide for themselves. Your rant's a total waste of your time. No one cares. Chill the fuck out.

It's almost certain that there's going to be a mass extinction event in the next few million years, because they happen every few million years, and several of them have been because of asteroids, and unless the laws of physics have suddenly changed it's basically inevitable.

This isn't shit I'm making up so if you want to argue this one just send some emails to some scientists or something and leave me the fuck alone, OK.

The Rapture is Christian doctrine. Knock yourself out. You're free to believe it. It's not going to happen and only Christians are worried about it, but whatever, knock yourself out.

On the subject of whether you and NoahJ are the same person, well, I'll just hold my peace on that subject. I was just told some stuff and well, I guess it was wrong stuff. You're free to ask a mod to settle it, and make me look super foolish.

On the subject of whether you and NoahJ are the same person, well, I'll just hold my peace on that subject. I was just told some stuff and well, I guess it was wrong stuff. You're free to ask a mod to settle it, and make me look super foolish.

I have already answered this I am not him, he is not me. We don't have the same posting style. We don't make the same arguments. We even disagree on many things and on how to respond to certain posters. You make yourself look foolish to any here who can tell the difference in posting styles. I answered you outright and plainly. And I don't care to talk about that particular ridiculous theory any longer...

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I assure you I've perused similar sites. There is no universal theory of gravity. If you have one let us know because you'll have accomplished what no one in humankind has done.

Mass ... and you need to posses the ability to think abstractly... (and the mere fact that you believe that a god (as presented in the Bible) exists, after supposedly giving serious thought to the idea, calls into question your ability to think clearly at all.)

Just because YOU can't understand the physics behind gravity, doesn't mean it doesn't exist... buy the course... watch it... you may learn something.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

Mass ... and you need to posses the ability to think abstractly... (and the mere fact that you believe that a god (as presented in the Bible) exists, after supposedly giving serious thought to the idea, calls into question your ability to think clearly at all.)

Just because YOU can't understand the physics behind gravity, doesn't mean it doesn't exist... buy the course... watch it... you may learn something.

Stop being an asshole. First I've never said gravity didn't exist. Second, the fact that there is no unified field theory and plenty of arguments about how to resolve gravity does not make me ignorant. It means you are presenting as resolved something that is not at all resolved. I'm not saying God is gravity or any sort of nonsense like that so stop throwing religion into it. It is just ridiculous to claim answers where they do not exist.

Well, with trumpet being quoted here, I still see his ignored posts. I might as well respond. Even if we have incomplete knowledge of what the inner workings of the universe, which is the case, that doesn't not in any way support a belief in a god or gods.

We have models that make predictions--very, very accurate predictions--that have been confirmed through observation. What we don't know, we seek answers for. Trumpet's reasoning that if science hasn't explained everything, god did it, is just an example of the ever shrinking god of the gaps. It's completely stupid.

Incomplete information does not imply confirmation of competing delusional explanations.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Well, with trumpet being quoted here, I still see his ignored posts. I might as well respond. Even if we have incomplete knowledge of what the inner workings of the universe, which is the case, that doesn't not in any way support a belief in a god or gods.

We have models that make predictions--very, very accurate predictions--that have been confirmed through observation. What we don't know, we seek answers for. Trumpet's reasoning that if science hasn't explained everything, god did it, is just an example of the ever shrinking god of the gaps. It's completely stupid.

Incomplete information does not imply confirmation of competing delusional explanations.

Speaking of incomplete information, I didn't say anything like that.

Try to stop talking out your ass and read the words you're going to respond to if you are going to be lecturing and patronizing towards me.

What's completely stupid is making shit up because you refuse to actually read the posts. Stop being an idiot.

You guys are both missing the point here. We don't know what attracts two masses to one another. But we don't try to answer that question without further observation of how things work. We don't throw out unscientific theories about it. To do so would be asinine. Then why do we feel compelled to throw out unscientific theories about death/afterworld/fate of the masses? This theorizing, too, is asinine.

You guys are both missing the point here. We don't know what attracts two masses to one another. But we don't try to answer that question without further observation of how things work. We don't throw out unscientific theories about it. To do so would be asinine. Then why do we feel compelled to throw out unscientific theories about death/afterworld/fate of the masses? This theorizing, too, is asinine.

I never said anything about death or the afterlife. What was discussed was "The Rapture". Depending upon which version of it you subscribe to, a bunch of people either disappear (or stay depending upon the version) and then a bunch of massive and calamitous events befall the planet.

So basically while arguing the particulars, I declared I do not believe the end of our present world to be eminent be it from a religious entity, global warming, overpopulation or meteorite. Certain smarmy people on here will call one of those choices a kook and the rest well-intentioned and scientific. All four should be treated as kooks.

I never said anything about death or the afterlife. What was discussed was "The Rapture". Depending upon which version of it you subscribe to, a bunch of people either disappear (or stay depending upon the version) and then a bunch of massive and calamitous events befall the planet.

So basically while arguing the particulars, I declared I do not believe the end of our present world to be eminent be it from a religious entity, global warming, overpopulation or meteorite. Certain smarmy people on here will call one of those choices a kook and the rest well-intentioned and scientific. All four should be treated as kooks.

Actually, to say there will never be another mass extinction event on Earth is just as dumb as saying there will never be another earthquake in California.

But saying we need to prepare for it (other than pursuit of off-planet colonization and an anti-asteroid defense strategy) is moronic.

Well, with trumpet being quoted here, I still see his ignored posts. I might as well respond. Even if we have incomplete knowledge of what the inner workings of the universe, which is the case, that doesn't not in any way support a belief in a god or gods.

We have models that make predictions--very, very accurate predictions--that have been confirmed through observation. What we don't know, we seek answers for. Trumpet's reasoning that if science hasn't explained everything, god did it, is just an example of the ever shrinking god of the gaps. It's completely stupid.

Incomplete information does not imply confirmation of competing delusional explanations.

An understanding of how an observable thing reacts under specific conditions is also not proof of the non-existence of G-d. It does however show order in creation. One does not preclude the other.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I have already answered this I am not him, he is not me. We don't have the same posting style. We don't make the same arguments. We even disagree on many things and on how to respond to certain posters. You make yourself look foolish to any here who can tell the difference in posting styles. I answered you outright and plainly. And I don't care to talk about that particular ridiculous theory any longer...

Which is why I've already accepted that and even apologised. But you can keep on objecting for as long as you please, of course.

An understanding of how an observable thing reacts under specific conditions is also not proof of the non-existence of G-d. It does however show order in creation. One does not preclude the other.

There is no need to disprove any god. You postulate a god exists. You must prove it. You have that burden (no matter how much SDW doesn't want it to be so). The default position is that god is bullshit. You must define it and prove its existence if you want any sane, rational person to accept it as reality.

You can't even adequately define your god, though, anyway. I'm an igtheist above all else. Discussion of this existence or nonexistence of your alleged supernatural entity is pointless without a falsifiable definition.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

The with regard to events involving the planet and mass extinctions all but one are not related to asteroid strikes and while the majority believe there was an asteroid strike, it is not assured that it was the sole cause rather than being merely coincidental. There's speculation that one of them involved an asteroid but the rest appear to involve sudden changes in sea level, volcanoes, and planet temp.

So even sweating an asteroid strike would require some pretty decent faith.

There is no need to disprove any god. You postulate a god exists. You must prove it. You have that burden (no matter how much SDW doesn't want it to be so). The default position is that god is bullshit. You must define it and prove its existence if you want any sane, rational person to accept it as reality.

You can't even adequately define your god, though, anyway. I'm an igtheist above all else. Discussion of this existence or nonexistence of your alleged supernatural entity is pointless without a falsifiable definition.

Then why do you keep making posts about G-d if it is pointless to discuss? why do you feel the continual need to disprove him? I have adequately defined Him for me, and the level of proof you require is your own burden.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

You are comparing asteroid strikes, for which we have geological evidence that fits the geological evidence for mass extinctions, to the Rapture, for which we have some stuff in a book.

You better check that. It fits the geological evidence and could be a contributing factor to ONE mass extinction. However even then, it was a random event. This would be true in the future, it would be a random event. Trying to tie reasoning to random events or seeing patterns in mere coincidences is precisely the type of bad reasoning that religion is declared to promote. There's a claim that in the entire recorded history of the Earth that one asteroid may have contributed to one mass extinction. That is hardly a pattern or predictive.

Quote:

Ones a question of arguing about facts.

So you are claiming one coincidental event now has enough predictive power to be a future fact. It is in the realm of possible but so is almost anything if the rate of probability is anything above zero.

Quote:

The others a question of myth.

You seem unaware of the part of the Rapture called the Great Tribulation where " worldwide hardships, disasters, famine, war, pain, and suffering, which will wipe out more than 75% of all life on the earth before the Second Coming takes place."

That to me reads just like the consequences of Global Warming so of course it is appropriate that both are treated as mythical by you. Oh wait, one of those isn't treated as mythical by you. Why would you even declare a prediction of something that COULD happen, no matter how improbably to be a "fact" just because the prediction came from a scientist or person who wishes to claim science for social engineering purposes.

In fact since you claim science is predictive, can you show, beyond small scale experiments, where science actually has been accurate over the long run? What have large consortiums of scientists come up and been able to accurately predict with regard to our planet and human behavior? If the results are tallied, I'm sure they wouldn't be much better than coincidence. The claim that any future prediction is a fact is what can be labeled absurd.

Quote:

The comparison is absurd.

Science is pretty decent at giving us some tools of understanding for dealing with some variables within a mostly closed system at a rate slightly better than pure chance. You open the system, you have several independent variables and you might as well throw darts at a board. This has been proven true for economic forecasts, weather forecasts, you name it. Anyone claiming science as some moral mantle to rule over another person is completely delusional.

Then why do you keep making posts about G-d if it is pointless to discuss? why do you feel the continual need to disprove him? I have adequately defined Him for me, and the level of proof you require is your own burden.

If people kept their religions to themselves and didn't oppress gays and atheists...

If people kept their religions to themselves and didn't fight amongst each other...

If people kept their religions to themselves and didn't try to insert their mythology into the science classroom...

If people kept their religions to themselves and didn't attempt to equate actual mass extinction events with the silliest fucking idea of the rapture...

If people kept their religions to themselves and didn't teach others that thinking critically and requiring evidence to believe things was bad...

If people kept their religions to themselves and didn't teach others that the world is 6,000 years old...

If people kept their religions to themselves and didn't indoctrinate children too young to not be brainwashed...

then I'd shut up about your idiotic ideas of god.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

There is no need to disprove any god. You postulate a god exists. You must prove it. You have that burden (no matter how much SDW doesn't want it to be so). The default position is that god is bullshit. You must define it and prove its existence if you want any sane, rational person to accept it as reality.

You can't even adequately define your god, though, anyway. I'm an igtheist above all else. Discussion of this existence or nonexistence of your alleged supernatural entity is pointless without a falsifiable definition.

First, no one needs to prove anything to you. And what gives you the right to proclaim that "God is bullshit" is the default position?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Theism isn't a science. Likewise you aren't a science. How do you falsifiably prove that Julius Cesar existed?

You seem to be trying to argue that one can as easily prove the existence of Julius Caesar as one can the existence of the Christian God.

We have, inter alia, dozens of busts of Julius Caesar, biographies by Seuitonius and Plutarch, dedications in stone, inscriptions, hundreds of quotations attested from multiple classical sources, a very long, detailed account of his invasions of Gaul and Britain attributed to Caesar himself, discussions of his political reforms by Apius and Cassius Dio and his complete geneology.

You seem to be trying to argue that one can as easily prove the existence of Julius Caesar as one can the existence of the Christian God.

We have, inter alia, dozens of busts of Julius Caesar, biographies by Seuitonius and Plutarch, dedications in stone, inscriptions, hundreds of quotations attested from multiple classical sources, a very long, detailed account of his invasions of Gaul and Britain attributed to Caesar himself, discussions of his political reforms by Apius and Cassius Dio and his complete geneology.

I understand that for the existence of God we have a book of myth.

So we don't have anything like that attributable to God? Of course we do. Also the point there is that you are citing historical evidence which isn't the same as scientific evidence.

So we don't have anything like that attributable to God? Of course we do. Also the point there is that you are citing historical evidence which isn't the same as scientific evidence.

That's the point.

No, trumptman, we don't have biographies of God made by his contemporaries, we don't have busts of God taken from life, we don't have discussions of God's political reforms of Heaven made by his political inheritors, we don't have dedications for God's military victories on arches and lintels made in his lifetime, we don't have a complete geneology that includes God's parents and his successors for several generations.

And archeology most certainly is a science.

So when you say

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

So we don't have anything like that attributable to God? Of course we do

No, trumptman, we don't have biographies of God made by his contemporaries, we don't have busts of God taken from life, we don't have discussions of God's political reforms of Heaven made by his political inheritors, we don't have dedications for God's military victories on arches and lintels made in his lifetime, we don't have a complete geneology that includes God's parents and his successors for several generations.

And archeology most certainly is a science.

So when you say

I would like to know, precisely, what.

Archeology is considered a science and a humanity mixed together. It is not a hard science. You can't go back in time and have multiple samples.

I think you are intentionally being obtuse here. Clearly there have been dozens of temples, shrines, texts, etc. all attributed to God. The Bible clearly has geneologies in it as well and God is considered the beginning of that geneology. There are absolutely dedications to him, victories ascribed to him, you name it over historical time.

Are you just being dense about this?

Which historical figures do you doubt existed because they don't have every single one of those items you just listed?

Julius Caesar won many battles as a general, marshalling his troops in the field.

Which battles did God lead as a flesh and blood general, against whom, and where are the inscriptions and dedications commemorating those victories?

Julius Caesar was a real person.

We know Julius Caesars parents (they were real people) and his progeny for generations (they were real people.)

Who are Gods parents, where did they live, who did God marry, where did his children live, who did they marry. Chop chop.

Julius Caesar had his likeness taken from life. Where are the portraits of God taken from life?

Where are the biographies of God written by his contemporaries?

trumptman, youre going to go to bed tonight as the man who tried to argue that theres as much archeological and literary evidence for the existence of God as there is for Julius Caesar just to win an argument on the internet. Just stop.